Bridge Jumpers get nailed at Aqueduct

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

that would be like laughing at someone who lost 100k in the stock market.
pathetic? yes it is
sad? yep
playing the stock market a suckers game? gosh darned it, yes! (can i use the word hell here?)

a source of amusement? i dont know about that one.

did you hear the one about the lil ol granny who got run over by an earth mover while crossing the street?

now that was funny!

I guess I just don't see the comparison between losing 50K on a sucker show bet and an old woman dying.

They aren't really in the same universe as far as bad analogies go.

[SentToStud]

Thankfully it happened in New York. At least the poor schnook gets to choose from a lot of bridges. Anyone who chases $2.10 deserves whatever they get.

[VOL JACK]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Thankfully it happened in New York. At least the poor schnook gets to choose from a lot of bridges. Anyone who chases $2.10 deserves whatever they get.

We had the same thread on here a month ago and i got bashed for calling it a chickenshit bet. Glad to know someone is laughing with me.

[Danzig]

i would think if someone dropped 50k on a bet, they could afford to lose it. hell, maybe one day they'll look back and laugh too.

or maybe not

[jman5581]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i would think if someone dropped 50k on a bet, they could afford to lose it. hell, maybe one day they'll look back and laugh too.

or maybe not

just maybe... probably the donald using his phone a bet account.

[Indian Charlie]

while it's human nature to laugh at the misfortune of others, i think it's useful to draw a line somewhere.

the reason, spenser, that the analogy isnt a bad one was that it was meant to show how ridiculous you are, laughing at a rather severe misfortune somebody just went through.

maybe losing 50k isnt a big deal to people on this board, but i wouldnt assume that for the person who did lose it.

oh, maybe this is an analogy you'll understand better. do you laugh at people, who out of some messed up desperation in their life, spend $100's a week on the lottery that they really cannot afford? No? Why not? It's the ultimate sucker bet and is really much worse than any bet you can make in horse racing.


why even the need to laugh at someone that loses, period? you are probably one of those people that when their horse is obviously going to lose, will route against his friends horse from winning.

misery loves company is alive and well.

as to the person who wanted me to complete the old lady joke...

this lady was crossing the street from her old age home. she got all dolled up in her best moth ball smelling dress from the 40's. she had her requisite 2 gallons of old lady perfume on, and she even had her dentures polished for this rare outing.

anyways, she got to the point where she was about halfway across the road, but because her walker wasnt motorized, it took her several hours to cross the street. finally, some half drunk NASCAR fan who was driving the earth mover vehicle had had enough.

so, he put out his marlboro, put some garth brooks (I hope i've not offended anyone by invoking garth's name) tune on, put a piece of straw in his mouth, and decided to punch the gas with a loud yee haw yell!!

the punchline? she was crossing the street to pick up her social security check!!!! talk about a sucker!!!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

while it's human nature to laugh at the misfortune of others, i think it's useful to draw a line somewhere.

the reason, spenser, that the analogy isnt a bad one was that it was meant to show how ridiculous you are, laughing at a rather severe misfortune somebody just went through.

maybe losing 50k isnt a big deal to people on this board, but i wouldnt assume that for the person who did lose it.

oh, maybe this is an analogy you'll understand better. do you laugh at people, who out of some messed up desperation in their life, spend $100's a week on the lottery that they really cannot afford? No? Why not? It's the ultimate sucker bet and is really much worse than any bet you can make in horse racing.


why even the need to laugh at someone that loses, period? you are probably one of those people that when their horse is obviously going to lose, will route against his friends horse from winning.

misery loves company is alive and well.

as to the person who wanted me to complete the old lady joke...

this lady was crossing the street from her old age home. she got all dolled up in her best moth ball smelling dress from the 40's. she had her requisite 2 gallons of old lady perfume on, and she even had her dentures polished for this rare outing.

anyways, she got to the point where she was about halfway across the road, but because her walker wasnt motorized, it took her several hours to cross the street. finally, some half drunk NASCAR fan who was driving the earth mover vehicle had had enough.

so, he put out his marlboro, put some garth brooks (I hope i've not offended anyone by invoking garth's name) tune on, put a piece of straw in his mouth, and decided to punch the gas with a loud yee haw yell!!

the punchline? she was crossing the street to pick up her social security check!!!! talk about a sucker!!!

well that was a good one for character judgments: "you are probably one of those people that when their horse is obviously going to lose, will route against his friends horse from winning."

I'm sure personal judgments are your forté, as illustrated here, but you're way way off. Of course, the fact that you're totally wrong means nothing when you just want to take a jab, so I'll give you that one.

Why is it severe misfortune, if someone was willing to pony up 50K or so on a bet that relied on an animal, that even if successful paid five cents on the dollar? That has nothing to do with me being a bad person for laughing at misfortune, that has to do with people making shitty sucker bets and losing. They get what they deserve. Someone bridge jumping has to win in the vicinity of 19 out of 20 of their ridiculous wagers in order to just break even. Please find me one bet on an animal that is a good bet at 1-20 odds to come through 19 out of 20 times. Really, please do, since I'm sure it would go a long way in proving your point that I'm a worthless human being who is only out to goad others for their misfortune.

Nope, you're pretty much without a case here, other than trying to prove your point that you don't like me. Well done there, bucko.

And your analogy still sucks, fyi. Misfortune that one brings on themself (wagering thousands of dollars on a 1-20 proposition involving an animal) vs. one they don't bring on themself (getting hit by a car) are in two totally different ballparks on two totally different planets and still, several posts later, have nothing to do with one another.

But all the same -- thinking a bridge-jumper gets what they deserve = I'm a bad person.

You got it. You can have that one if you want to.

Now I know what that one poster said about how he mentioned it several weeks ago and got chided for it. A sucker bet is a sucker bet, no matter how much it gets projected onto the person calling it out. Still a bunch of ho-hum nonsense IC.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

well that was a good one for character judgments: "you are probably one of those people that when their horse is obviously going to lose, will route against his friends horse from winning."

I'm sure personal judgments are your forté, as illustrated here, but you're way way off. Of course, the fact that you're totally wrong means nothing when you just want to take a jab, so I'll give you that one.

Why is it severe misfortune, if someone was willing to pony up 50K or so on a bet that relied on an animal, that even if successful paid five cents on the dollar? That has nothing to do with me being a bad person for laughing at misfortune, that has to do with people making shitty sucker bets and losing. They get what they deserve. Someone bridge jumping has to win in the vicinity of 19 out of 20 of their ridiculous wagers in order to just break even. Please find me one bet on an animal that is a good bet at 1-20 odds to come through 19 out of 20 times. Really, please do, since I'm sure it would go a long way in proving your point that I'm a worthless human being who is only out to goad others for their misfortune.

Nope, you're pretty much without a case here, other than trying to prove your point that you don't like me. Well done there, bucko.

And your analogy still sucks, fyi. Misfortune that one brings on themself (wagering thousands of dollars on a 1-20 proposition involving an animal) vs. one they don't bring on themself (getting hit by a car) are in two totally different ballparks on two totally different planets and still, several posts later, have nothing to do with one another.

But all the same -- thinking a bridge-jumper gets what they deserve = I'm a bad person.

You got it. You can have that one if you want to.

Now you are playing the role of the martyr! Because I disagree with you, I don't like you?

Come to think of it, I'll have to concede that one to you. Good point.

Now, to address your other points. I pretty much leave people alone and try not to make judgments about them. That includes determining what in their eyes should or should not be a sucker bet, or should or should not be a severe misfortune.

I guess what I've been trying to illustrate to you, quite poorly apparently, is that maybe it is not your place to determine what does or does not make up a severe misfortune for other people. You do not know the first thing about the person who lost that bet, so to assume it didn't hurt him/her is in my eyes a wild assumption.

And you say I'm the one who's judgmental?

The question I really want to know, and might explain things, is why do you even care one way or the other that a bridgejumper won or lost his/her bet?

Honestly, can you tell me why you would take any glee in anyone losing any sized bet? The whole concept is utterly ridiculous to me.

Believe me, I do understand that it's a 'sucker' bet. However, since just about the minimum takeout on any horse racing bet is 19% or so (last I checked anyways), a solid argument could be made that anyone who bets horses is a sucker.

I guess that makes it okay then for me to laugh at you when you lose.

[jman5581]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Someone bridge jumping has to win in the vicinity of 19 out of 20 of their ridiculous wagers in order to just break even.

You guys should pay attention to my show parlay thread

Look at some of the show payouts on favorites from today... Basically, 6 consecutive show picks on small fields over the past couple days has resulted in over 250% return. I know, I know, you can just bet a 5/2 to win....

Would we laugh at the guy if he bet to show on 5 horse fields 6 consecutive times and tripled his money?

How do you know he's not a horseplayer who just won the powerball and decided to make a "bridge jumper" bet just for the hell of it?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by jman5581

You guys should pay attention to my show parlay thread

Look at some of the show payouts on favorites from today... Basically, 6 consecutive show picks on small fields over the past couple days has resulted in over 250% return. I know, I know, you can just bet a 5/2 to win....

Would we laugh at the guy if he bet to show on 5 horse fields 6 consecutive times and tripled his money?

How do you know he's not a horseplayer who just won the powerball and decided to make a "bridge jumper" bet just for the hell of it?

The problem Jman with the Show Parlay Thread = Bridge Jumping comparison is that it doesn't really work. Bridge jumpers don't regularly get back over $3 on their bets like some of yours do. Your bets take into account the favorites you think will show, without the 50K show wager attached to it.

So when we're talking about bridge jumping, we're talking about people who pound show pools so hard that the only possible result is either 1.) $2.10 payoffs or 2.) Losing their money.

Your thread is informative insofar as it shows that possibility of potentially making money on show wagers -- but it's not on the same level as laughing at a bridge jumper similar to the one at Aqueduct today. They're in the same realm, but not the same thing.

-- on a sidenote, I'm enjoying that thread lots!

[jman5581]

It was intended to inject a bit of humor....

[jman5581]

Originally Posted by BOMBTHREAT

Anyone who wants to defend that kind of action is either a) a moron or b) the sucker that made the bet. Which is it?

B..... it was me.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by BOMBTHREAT

The point is.....they get what they deserve. If they had that much money then they probably don't need it. My point was it probably wasn't the best spot to put that in play. Since I had $10 across the board on the 3 in that race I was one happy camper.

PS - I prebet it and checked the pick from work, I wish I could have seen the pool totals - I could have just loaded up to show.

Anyone who wants to defend that kind of action is either a) a moron or b) the sucker that made the bet. Which is it?

a bit off topic BOMBTHREAT, but you dont have your Private Message option turned on.

Next time you swing in the Hampton OTB...tell Julie (bartender) that Kevin says hello. Thanks.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by VOL JACK

We had the same thread on here a month ago and i got bashed for calling it a chickenshit bet. Glad to know someone is laughing with me.

I'm well on my way. Proud to be on the team.